Pettitt v Pettitt

Last updated

Pettitt v Pettitt
Citation(s)[1970] AC 777
Transcript(s) judgment
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, Lord Upjohn, Lord Diplock

Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777 is a leading English trusts law case, concerning the presumption of advancement and a spouse's equitable interest in the matrimonial home.

Contents

Facts

In Pettitt, the wife had used her own money to buy a house during the marriage, meaning the title to the house had been in the wife's name, [1] and both she and her husband resided therein until the wife left the husband. The husband claimed that he had carried out a considerable number of improvements to the house and garden. These improvements consisted of internal decoration work, building a wardrobe, laying a lawn and constructing an ornamental wall and a side wall in the garden. By virtue of these efforts the husband sought a beneficial interest in the proceeds of sale of the property.

Judgment

In the course of his judgment, Lord Diplock said,

"It would, in my view, be an abuse of the legal technique for ascertaining or imputing intention to apply to transactions between the post-war generation of married couples "presumptions which are based upon inferences of fact which an earlier generation of judges drew as to the most likely intentions of earlier generations of spouses belonging to the propertied classes of a different social era."

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wife</span> Female spouse; woman who is married

A wife is a female in a marital relationship. A woman who has separated from her partner continues to be a wife until their marriage is legally dissolved with a divorce judgment. On the death of her partner, a wife is referred to as a widow. The rights and obligations of a wife to her partner and her status in the community and law vary between cultures and have varied over time.

A prenuptial agreement, antenuptial agreement, or premarital agreement, is a written contract entered into by a couple prior to marriage or a civil union that enables them to select and control many of the legal rights they acquire upon marrying, and what happens when their marriage eventually ends by death or divorce. Couples enter into a written prenuptial agreement to supersede many of the default marital laws that would otherwise apply in the event of divorce, such as the laws that govern the division of property, retirement benefits, savings, and the right to seek alimony with agreed-upon terms that provide certainty and clarify their marital rights. A premarital agreement may also contain waivers of a surviving spouse's right to claim an elective share of the estate of the deceased spouse.

Matrimonial regimes, or marital property systems, are systems of property ownership between spouses providing for the creation or absence of a marital estate and if created, what properties are included in that estate, how and by whom it is managed, and how it will be divided and inherited at the end of the marriage. Matrimonial regimes are applied either by operation of law or by way of prenuptial agreement in civil-law countries, and depend on the lex domicilii of the spouses at the time of or immediately following the wedding..

A resulting trust is an implied trust that comes into existence by operation of law, where property is transferred to someone who pays nothing for it; and then is implied to have held the property for benefit of another person. The trust property is said to "result" or jump back to the transferor. In this instance, the word 'result' means "in the result, remains with", or something similar to "revert" except that in the result the beneficial interest is held on trust for the settlor. Not all trusts whose beneficiary is also the settlor can be called resulting trusts. In common law systems, the resulting trust refers to a subset of trusts which have such outcome; express trusts which stipulate that the settlor is to be the beneficiary are not normally considered resulting trusts. Another understanding of resulting trusts could be an equitable instrument used to rectify and reverse unjust enrichment.

<i>Murdoch v Murdoch</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Murdoch v Murdoch, also known as the Murdoch Case, was a controversial family law decision by the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court denied an abused ranch wife any interest in the family ranch. This case is most notable for the public outcry it created at the time and for what many believe is Justice Laskin's most famous dissenting opinion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dower</span> Assets reserved for a wife in case her husband dies

Dower is a provision accorded traditionally by a husband or his family, to a wife for her support should she become widowed. It was settled on the bride by agreement at the time of the wedding, or as provided by law.

<i>White v White</i>

White v White is an English family law decision by the House of Lords, and a landmark case in redistribution of finances as well as property on divorce. This case involved a couple with assets exceeding £4.5m which was deemed more than either needs for their reasonable requirements. It was held that the absence of financial need did not mean departing from a more generous settlement for an applicant in big money cases. This, therefore, enables the courts to make settlements reflecting the wealth of the parties, and not just their needs and requirements.

<i>Stack v Dowden</i>

Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 is a leading English property law case from the House of Lords case concerning the division of interests in family property after the breakdown of a cohabitation relationship.

<i>Gissing v Gissing</i>

Gissing v Gissing [1970] UKHL 3 is an English land law and trust law case dealing with constructive trusts arising in relationships between married couple. It may no longer represent good law, since the decisions of Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott.

<i>Williams & Glyns Bank v Boland</i>

Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland [1980] is a House of Lords judgment in English land and trusts law on an occupier's potentially overriding interests in a home.

<i>Barclays Bank plc v OBrien</i>

Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien[1993] UKHL 6 is an English contract law case relating to undue influence. It set out the basic categories of undue influence as,

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English land law</span> Law of real property in England and Wales

English land law is the law of real property in England and Wales. Because of its heavy historical and social significance, land is usually seen as the most important part of English property law. Ownership of land has its roots in the feudal system established by William the Conqueror after 1066, and with a gradually diminishing aristocratic presence, now sees a large number of owners playing in an active market for real estate.

<i>Chhokar v Chhokar</i>

Chhokar v Chhokar [1984] FLR 313 is an English land law case concerning constructive trusts law and widening the natural meaning of "actual occupation". The facts of the case showed an intention to do a woman out of her occupational interest in a matrimonial home, as the new co-owner buying his share from the husband knew of her situation from the outset and wished to resell the property. The court confirmed in these exact circumstances her interest was overriding at the time when she was in hospital and it was a constructive trust.

Eves v Eves [1975] EWCA Civ 3 is an English land law case, concerning constructive trusts of the family home.

<i>Harris v Goddard</i>

Harris v Goddard [1983] 3 All ER 242 is an English land law and matrimonial law case, concerning co-owned land between spouses and finding as to the effect of a divorce petition.

<i>National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth</i>

National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] is an English land law and family law case, concerning the quality of a person's interest in a home when people live together, as well as licenses in land.

<i>Binions v Evans</i>

Binions v Evans[1972] EWCA Civ 6 is an English land law and English trusts law case, concerning a constructive trust of land which will often be irrevocable whilst the occupier is in occupation as opposed to a licence to occupy — and/or a tenancy at will which is similar save that without transfer of the underlying property it can be revoked without cause. The case hinged on the fact there was an agreement specifying the existing occupier was to remain.

<i>Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd</i>

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 AC 415 is a leading UK company law decision of the UK Supreme Court concerning the nature of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, resulting trusts and equitable proprietary remedies in the context of English family law.

The presumption of advancement is a legal presumption which arises in various common law jurisdictions in relation to the transfers of money or other property. Broadly, the presumption states that where a husband transfers property to his wife, or a father to his child or someone to whom he has assumed parental responsibility, then in the absence of other evidence the court will presume that the transfer was by way of gift. In Australia it has also been held to apply to transfers from a male fiancé to a female fiancée. In Hong Kong it has been suggested that it may also apply to an official concubine.

Undue influence in English law is a field of contract law and property law whereby a transaction may be set aside if it was procured by the influence exerted by one person on another, such that the transaction cannot "fairly be treated the expression of [that person's] free will".

References

  1. "Dunstan, J A --- "Ownership of Matrimonial Property: Pettitt v Pettitt; Gissing v Gissing" [1973] SydLawRw 6; (1973) 7(1) Sydney Law Review 105".

See also